British Columbia Hansard — TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004 (37th Parliament, 5th Session) (20040427pm-Hansard-v24n6)
20040427pm-Hansard-v24n6
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 24, Number 6
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Page
Introductions by Members
Tributes
Lee Doney
Hon. G.
Campbell
MacPhail
Hon. G.
Bruce
Introduction and First Reading
of Bills
Partnership Amendment Act, 2004
(Bill 35)
Hon. G.
Collins
Community, Aboriginal and Women's
Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 36)
Hon. M.
Coell
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
Zajac Ranch
R. Hawes
Gun violence in Vancouver
Mayencourt
Cameron Elementary School Youth
Credit Union
H. Bloy
Oral Questions
B.C. Rail privatization process
MacPhail
Hon. K.
Falcon
J. Kwan
Work of leaky-condo task force
Brenzinger
Hon. G.
Campbell
Impact of health support worker
labour dispute on autism services
J. Bray
Hon. C.
Hansen
B.C. Rail privatization process and
police investigation
J. Kwan
Hon. K.
Falcon
Committee of the Whole House
Society Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill
32)
Report and Third Reading of
Bills
Society Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill
32)
Committee of the Whole House
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment
Act, 2004 (Bill 18)
J. Kwan
Hon. C.
Hansen
Hon. R.
Neufeld
Lekstrom
Hon. G.
Plant
Report and Third Reading of
Bills
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment
Act, 2004 (Bill 18)
Committee of Supply
Estimates: Ministry of Advanced
Education (continued)
Hon. S.
Bond
J. Kwan
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room
Committee of Supply
Estimates: Ministry of
Transportation (continued)
MacPhail
Hon. K.
Falcon
[ Page 10525 ]
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004
The House
met at 2:03 p.m.
Introductions by Members
Hon. G.
Campbell: Today in the House we have a number of leaders of the Sikh
community in British Columbia who are here to celebrate the 400th anniversary of
the first installation of the Guru Granth Sahib at the Darbar Sahib, commonly
known as the Golden Temple. British Columbia is the first province in the
country to actually proclaim the 400th anniversary of the installation, and I'd
like to just take a moment to read the proclamation.
"Whereas
the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh scripture, is a compilation of the divine
wisdom of the Sikh gurus and saints of other faiths reaffirming the
fundamental unity of all religions;
whereas the Sikh scripture embodies the
universal message of truth, compassion, peace, equality, sharing and service
towards all humankind;
whereas the Guru Granth Sahib stresses the democratic
way of life and equality of all people;
whereas 2004 marks the 400th
anniversary of the first installation of the Guru Granth Sahib at Darbar
Sahib, commonly known as the Golden Temple in Amritsar; and
whereas Sikhs have
been a major part of our province since the early 1900s when pioneers settled
in areas all over British Columbia; we do proclaim and declare April 2004 the
400th anniversary of the installation of Guru Granth Sahib in British
Columbia."
[1405]
This is an
important year for our Sikh community. It's important that they have shared
their beliefs, their religion and their culture with all of us. They make our
province richer, and I would like the House to make them all welcome.
Hon. S.
Hagen: In the precincts today I am pleased to welcome as guests Mr. Geoff
Horn, who is the teacher, and ten grades 9 to 12 students from the North Island
Distance Education School in Courtenay. This was an agency that was set up in
1991 by a very progressive and very solid-thinking Minister of Education. Their
mission statement is to support successful learning by providing
student-centred, teacher-directed, distributed learning services through the use
of diverse technologies and community partnerships. Would the House please join
me in welcoming them.
Tributes
LEE DONEY
Hon. G.
Campbell: Everyone in the House recognizes the strength of our public
service in the province and the contributions they make. Today I rise to
recognize the many contributions of a career public servant, Lee Doney. He's
joined today by his mother and his family.
Lee is
retiring this year. Certainly, it will be a great loss to British Columbia's
public service. His leadership has been exemplary. He joined the B.C. public
service in 1975 when he started as a research officer at the Ministry of Labour.
His contribution has accelerated from opportunity to opportunity. He was a
director, general manager, manager, special adviser, chief executive officer of
Forest Renewal B.C., the B.C. Labour Force Development Board, chairman of the
WCB, director of the B.C. Treaty Commission, the provincial Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy. He served as Deputy Minister of Forests and is
currently Deputy Minister of Labour.
I should
say that Mr. Doney has always been someone who gives us the best kind of advice
from the public service. He provides and lays out a full array of options. He
allows his political colleagues to work that through at the cabinet level. He
has, in fact, been an exemplary public servant for the last 30 years.
On behalf
of everyone in the House, I'd like to say thank you to Mr. Doney for his
contribution and also thank you to his family for letting him be away from home
so often to make sure that the public in British Columbia were served.
MacPhail: I am honoured to be able to take this opportunity to acknowledge
Mr. Lee Doney as well. He has been a public servant through many governments. I
actually first met Mr. Doney in the early eighties. We both started out our
careers at the bargaining table. It will come as a bit of a surprise to people
to know that we were on opposite sides of the bargaining table.
Mr. Doney
was a big mucky-muck in government management back in those days of the early
eighties. It was a terribly difficult time in negotiations. A huge part of the
public sector was about to go out on a provincewide strike. The government was
asking for concessions and wage rollbacks. I just want to say: gee, Lee, look
how things have changed since you became Deputy Minister of Labour.
Anyway, I
must say that between that time and this time, Mr. Doney has done great public
service for all British Columbians, and we're delighted to join in his
celebration of his retirement.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Lee, of course, has had the pleasure of working with me for the last
three years, and he's often told me that great line in Yes, Minister : "Yes,
Minister, you're about to be very courageous." I appreciate those lines of
counsel. You know, Lee and I get together and have worked well together simply
because of the fact that his father actually coached my father in baseball years
and years and years ago.
[1410]
With Lee
today is his mother, Marjorie, and his family: Kendall, Samantha, Stewart,
Spencer and Shelley Larsen. I would ask the House to make them all feel very,
very welcome.
Mr.
Speaker: The minister wishes to continue?
Hon. G.
Bruce: If that would be possible, Mr. Speaker.
[ Page 10526 ]
Introductions by Members
Hon. G.
Bruce: As you know, it's not often that I get folks down here that I can
introduce. I'm always looking for a few other folks to be able to express my
appreciation that they come from the Cowichan area.
Along for
the proclamation that was read by the Premier here are people from the Paldi
Khalsa Diwan Society in Duncan: Mr. Kuldip Singh Bhandari, who is the treasurer,
and Suntokh Singh Ghainiji, also from the temple.
With my
wife, Anneke, in this gallery over here are three individuals that really do a
lot for our community. Greg Adams, who had a great career in the NHL, is here
today with us and is still trying to teach me how to skate. Along with him are a
couple of other guys that do just a tremendous amount both in the community of
Lake Cowichan and in the community of the Cowichan Valley: Dave Johel and Jerry
Doman. I'd ask you to make them all very, very welcome.
H. Bloy:
It's my honour to introduce Simon Fraser University B.C. Young Liberals,
present and past, who have once again made their annual trek to the Legislature.
My colleagues will be introducing a number of them. The SFU B.C. Young Liberals
has always been a vibrant club at SFU and a focal point for constructive debate
and positive social events. The SFU B.C. Young Liberals are the second-largest
club at SFU. It is my pleasure to introduce today Young Liberals from my riding,
Tina Poole and Woosang Lee, who live in my riding. I am also proud to introduce
Jessica Fuchs and David Godin from the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey.
Cheema: I would like to introduce a few special guests visiting from the
lower mainland who join me today in celebration of the Guru Granth Sahib
proclamation reception. From Dashmesh Darbar Gurdawra in Surrey are Kuldip Singh
Jagpal, past president, and Mr. Kehar Singh Bains, the new president. From
Surrey Guru Nanak Sikh Temple, which is in my riding, are Sadhu Singh Samra,
senior vice-president; and two other dedicated community leaders, Mr. Mota Singh
Jheeta and Mr. Pritam Singh Aulakh. I would like to thank all the members of the
Sikh community in this province for their hard work and their dedication in
building this great province. Would the House please join me and make them very
welcome.
MacKay: Today I am pleased to introduce a couple of guests. I have the
former mayor of Burns Lake, Paul Jean, and his wife, Doris, in the gallery
today. The timing has got me a little bit perplexed here, because last time
there was a health care issue that the government had to deal with, Mr. Jean
actually slept on the lawn of the Legislature on a bed showing his displeasure
with the issues around the health care issues. It's nice to see you back here
again, Paul. Accompanying Paul is his brother, Clement Jean, and his wife,
Margie, from Olds, Alberta. I'd like the House to please make them all welcome.
Roddick: In the gallery today, also celebrating the proclamation, is Ghaini
Ji Harkit Singh, a priest at many Sikh temples. Will the House please make him very
welcome.
Nuraney: As part of a group visiting us today is a person called Brock
Stevenson. He not only happens to be a bright, young and intelligent man, but
he's also a part of our executive in our riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. Will the
House please join me in welcoming him.
[1415]
Hon. C.
Clark: I just had the pleasure of meeting with two representatives of the
child and family services department in Denbighshire, North Wales, today. We
talked a lot about the respective issues and challenges that we face and some of
the great successes that we've both had in our ministries. We are joined today
by Gwynfor Griffiths, Angela Mathison and Ian Scott. I hope the House will
please make them very welcome.
Halsey-Brandt: Joining us today in celebrating the proclamation, we have
three members of the Sikh community: first from the Nanak Sar temple in
Richmond, Mr. Amrik Nijjar, who is the general secretary; from the India
Cultural Centre of Canada, Mr. Sohan S. Basi, who is the president, and Mr.
Avrar Singh Gosal. Would the House please make them welcome.
R. Lee:
It's my pleasure to introduce three SFU B.C. Young Liberals to the House today.
Miles Lunn, Ken Wong and Suki Wong are from North Burnaby, just east of Simon
Fraser University. Miles and Ken have been very active in the riding
association, and they have been my great supporters. Would the House please join
me to give them a warm welcome.
Locke: I would like to introduce a few guests that are in the gallery today
celebrating the proclamation with all of us. From the Surrey Guru Nanak Sikh
Temple, Mr. Ajab Singh Johal, Mr. Jarnail Singh Billa and a good friend of mine,
Mr. Jassa Grewal. Welcome.
Nijjar: I'd also like to recognize members of the Sikh community that are
here for the celebration from the Vancouver area. From the East Vancouver Akali
Singh Sikh Temple: Sadhu Singh Dhesi, Piara Singh Dhillon, Pritam Singh Aulakh,
Rattan Singh Girn and Balbir Singh Purhar. Would everyone please make them
welcome.
Hamilton: This afternoon it is my great pleasure to introduce one of my
hard-working constituents, Helen Bates, who has been heavily involved with the
military family resource centre at the Esquimalt naval base. Her countless hours
of volunteer service are greatly appreciated by the entire community. I thank
her for her time and look forward to congratulating her next Tuesday when she
receives a B.C. community achievement award. Would the House please make Helen
very welcome.
[ Page 10527 ]
Hawes: From the Mission Gur Sikh Society and the Mission temple, I'd like
the House to welcome my good friend and longtime associate, Terry Tarlok Singh
Gidda, president; Karam Singh Mann, director; and Harcharn Singh Brar. Could the
House please make them welcome.
S. Orr:
I am privileged to have in my community three temples, on Topaz, Graham and
Celelia streets. On behalf of all the South Island MLAs, I am pleased to welcome
three members of the Punjabi Akali Singh Society and very valued members of our
community. They are Charan Sangha, Charanjit Parmar and Shivdave Lalari. Would
the House please make them all very welcome.
Hon. T.
Christensen: It's my pleasure today to introduce two guests from Calgary.
Doug and Diane Cox are here visiting Victoria and visiting their son Bryan, who
is my executive assistant. I can tell them that Bryan has been doing an
exemplary job, and there was only a small period of time a couple of weeks ago
that we thought we might have to let him go, when he was cheering much too hard
for the Calgary Flames. Would the House make them both welcome.
H. Bloy:
I have two more introductions to make. First of all, I'd like to introduce
two proud parents, Gino and Edith Ferronato. They are here visiting their son,
Chris Ferronato, who is also a past Young Liberal and is working on an
internship here. It's their son's birthday today. Would the House please give
them a warm welcome.
There's a
very special couple that I would like to introduce. I met these two young people
four years ago, before I was elected, but I met them through the political
process. They were both Young Liberals at SFU. They committed so much time to
the Young Liberals at SFU, and they both worked on my campaign for election.
[1420]
When I
first met them, they were individuals, and I watched them mature and grow. Later
they started dating and became a couple. The relationship developed over the
years until last Saturday night when I had the honour and privilege of attending
their wedding. It was a great day for their wedding, and they held the reception
at — you'll know where — the Diamond Club at Simon Fraser University. Chris
works for me as a legislative assistant. Would the House please welcome Chris
and Janet Steinbach.
Hon. G.
Campbell: This is a marathon day of introductions, and it's okay if we set a
new record here. Let me just say that there's also another important thing that
has taken place in the last few days. Congratulations should go out to a special
team of people in Vancouver who worked very hard to win a national championship
gold medal, and it actually happens to be from a great secondary school called
Templeton Secondary School — not in my riding.
They have
done a very good job. They have come out number one in the — now, I want you
to hear this, and I hope Hansard hears this — the Canadian Smart Ask!
competition. The Smart Ask! competition is what we used to think of in
the olden days as Reach for the Top . I think it's great that a great
British Columbia high school with great students has come out on top.
Locke: I also want to welcome to the House today two SFU Young Liberals,
David Yau and Brandon Langhelm. They support me in my endeavours in Surrey. I
thank them and welcome them to the chamber.
Sahota: In honour of the celebration of the proclamation, the two temples in
my constituency, Shri Guru Ravidass Temple and the Canadian Ramagarhia Society,
also send their best wishes and congratulations.
Hon. G.
Abbott: A couple of introductions. First, I want to introduce two
constituents from Armstrong, Roger Lockwood and his son James Lockwood. They're
leaders in business in the community back in Armstrong. I also want to join with
the member for Richmond Centre in welcoming Olga Illich, the incoming chair of
the Assessment Authority board. I'd like to make them all welcome.
Hayer: I have two special groups of individuals here today. The first one
are SFU B.C. Young Liberals from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead: my son, Alexander
Hayer, and Richard Ly, who are also volunteers in my constituency association.
The second
group is Rupinder Rue Bains from Indo-Canadian Times and Apna Roots
newspapers, and Gurwinder S. Dhaliwal and Gautam Arora from PTV Punjab
television station, here to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Guru Granth
Sahib. Would the House please make them all welcome.
Hon. M.
de Jong: Visiting from Abbotsford, home of the oldest standing gurdwara —
and, I think, the only one in Canada designated as a national historic site —
Mr. Nirmal Sanghera, Mr. Norm Sangha, Mr. Nazar Gill, Mr. Sukh Darshan Gill, Mr.
Sadhu Sekhon, Mr. Jagtar Sangha, Mr. Malkit Dhesi and Mr. Mohinder Jawanda. I
hope we will make them welcome today.
Mayencourt: I thought I'd get in on this act. I have a couple of friends
visiting here as well. Candace Newton is a woman that I met recently. She runs a
radio program called Unlocking the Secrets for Women . She's here today
with her good friend Laura Prosko and Laura's mother, Margaret. They are filming
responses from members of the Legislature to support the Rick Hansen Foundation.
They're wonderful people. I would ask that the House please make them feel
welcome.
Also, I
have, from the SFU Young Liberals, Shaun Webb visiting. Shaun is an important
part of our community. I would ask that you also make him feel welcome. I think
that should just about do it.
[ Page 10528 ]
Mr.
Speaker: I didn't think the galleries held that many people.
[1425]
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2004
Hon. G.
Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill
intituled Partnership Amendment Act, 2004.
Hon. G.
Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: I am pleased to introduce the Partnership Amendment Act, 2004,
which allows for the registration and operation of limited liability
partnerships in British Columbia. British Columbia has lagged behind other
jurisdictions in Canada and around the world in not having legislation providing
for limited liability partnerships. These amendments will remedy the situation,
making British Columbia an attractive place to do business.
Under the
amendments included in this bill, partners in a limited liability partnership
will generally have protection from personal liability for the debts of the
partnership and the other partners. However, a limited liability partner will
not have this protection in instances of negligence or wrongdoing by that
partner. These amendments also contain a number of provisions to ensure that
those who deal with the limited liability partnership are aware of that fact.
These
amendments will bring this province into line with other provinces and countries
around the world by allowing the registration and operation of the limited
liability partnerships in British Columbia. They'll make this province a more
attractive place to do business while at the same time providing a balanced
level of protection to those who do business with the limited liability
partnership.
I move that
the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next
sitting of the House after today.
Bill 35
introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for
second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL AND
WOMEN'S SERVICES
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004
Hon. M.
Coell presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill
intituled Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act,
Hon. M.
Coell: I move that Bill 36 be read a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon. M.
Coell: I am pleased to present the Community, Aboriginal and Women's
Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. This act makes minor amendments to a
number of local government statutes for which my ministry is responsible —
specifically, the Local Government Act, the Vancouver Charter and the Community
Charter.
These
amendments respond to some specific changes and requests that will further
enhance and clarify aspects of local government legislation. In particular,
these amendments will implement proposals from a joint development industry,
local government and provincial government committee. These proposals will
fine-tune aspects of the development finance system established in the Local
Government Act and the Vancouver Charter.
The act
will also provide regional districts with greater flexibility to adapt cost
recovery for administrative-type services to meet unique local needs. Further,
the act responds to requests by the city of Vancouver to clarify the scope of
the charitable property tax exemption and the size of the board of variance
under the Vancouver Charter. Finally, the act will ensure that a number of
clarification and correction amendments that have been made on an interim basis
by regulation are now enshrined in the Community Charter along with a few
further housekeeping fixes.
I move that
the Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, be
placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House
after today.
Bill 36
introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for
second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25
b) ZAJAC RANCH
Hawes: Sometimes very good news can flow from bad. Last year, when it was
announced that the minimum-security Stave Lake corrections facility was going to
close in Mission, there was considerable angst in the community. Along came
Carmen Zajac and Mel Zajac, her father, who saw great potential in the site, and
they inspired the Mel Jr. and Marty Zajac Foundation to purchase the property
and develop it into a camp like no other in British Columbia.
Transformed
into a western village theme, the Zajac Ranch is dedicated to raising awareness,
spirits and money to assist children with special needs. The Zajacs have
recognized that for many of the more than 10,000 children in B.C. with special
medical needs, their disabilities may prevent them from ever enjoying a summer
camp adventure. The Zajac Ranch is dedicated to ensuring that they do have that
opportunity, and children attend this camp free of charge.
[ Page 10529 ]
[1430]
As their
brochure says, each program at the ranch is designed to improve the self-esteem,
confidence and quality of life of each child in a supportive environment. At the
Zajac Ranch, children will learn what they can do, not what they can't. Whether
it's horseback riding, swimming, wall climbing or art expression, every program
at the ranch is carefully crafted to bring out the best in every child. The
ranch features an around-the-clock health centre offering everything from
bandaging a minor cut to dialysis.
This is
great news for the Mission district. This is great news for British Columbia.
This is especially great news for the thousands of kids in this province with
special needs. I would invite everyone to visit their website at
www.zajacranch.com. Your support and your donations can really assist this
outstanding and worthwhile cause. I'd ask that all members join me in giving a
special thanks to Mel and Carmen Zajac and the dedicated volunteers on the board
of the Mel Jr. and Marty Zajac Foundation for their amazing generosity and
foresight in fulfilling this dream for so many kids.
GUN VIOLENCE IN VANCOUVER
Mayencourt: I don't know if it's just me, but I have become increasingly
worried about the prevalence of guns and violence in our communities. It seems
over the last little while that almost every week there's a shooting in
Vancouver. I have a nightclub in my neighbourhood called Atlantis. In the past
month they've had three shootings. There are families that live in the
neighbourhood beside Atlantis, and there are children that live there.
What really
concerns me is that the number of gunshot wounds we hear about are really only
the tip of the iceberg, because there doesn't seem to be a mechanism in place to
ensure communications between hospitals and police. We simply cannot have people
in our communities worried about their children and their families not being
safe as a result of gun violence. The Vancouver police department is doing what
it can to crack down on this, but we need to be able to help them to keep our
city as safe as can be. Already this year, the Vancouver police department has
reported numerous incidents related to firearms, including weapons seized at
Cordova and Granville, shots fired on Granville Street, gunfire exchanged at
Carrall Street, shots fired on Commercial Drive. Just this week, a young man was
shot after a concert that took place at the Pacific Coliseum.
Gun
violence is becoming increasingly common among young people, and the concern is
that if the first offence is not reported to police, there will likely be
retaliatory offences. Young people are not only in possession of guns, but they
are dying of gunshot wounds. For example, 21-year-old Rachel Davis stepped in to
stop a fight in Gastown and was shot and killed. Her good friend, Sebastian
Temper, was left wounded and traumatized by the incident.
Ontario is
expected to table legislation this year that would require doctors to report
gunshot and knife wounds to the police. Our own Dr. Roy Purssell, head of
emergency medicine at VGH, feels legislation is necessary for change. This House
has heard me speak about safer communities and safer streets on many occasions.
This is just one more way that we can make our streets safer for our children. I
urge doctors to report gunshot wounds to the police and be part of the solution,
making Vancouver streets a safe place for kids.
CAMERON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
YOUTH CREDIT UNION
H. Bloy:
Last Tuesday I had the pleasure of meeting the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Tutu and
Shirin Ebadi, three Nobel peace prize winners who contribute to the social
conscience of the world.
Later that
day at Cameron Elementary School, I met future business leaders of our country.
Cameron Elementary School has opened my riding's newest credit union, the
Cameron Youth Credit Union. This credit union opened in partnership with VanCity
credit union. We had Dave Mowat, Van City's CEO, on hand to help get the credit
union started. But the driving force behind this newest credit union in my
riding is Margaret Gardiner, branch manager of VanCity on North Road, and Sandra
Woodside, head teacher at Cameron.
The Youth
Credit Union has its own board of directors: CEO, Yun-A Park; president, Amanda
Chen; promotions, David Ma; secretary, Jovy Eramela; treasurer, Alvin Jang;
board assistant, Sean Choi; Zulybeth Galan and Jessica Lee. These are all
grade 7 students.
[1435]
To date,
this new credit union has attracted 87 customers with nearly $1,000 in deposits.
The credit union will teach children to save and plan for the future. Not only
do these students learn business skills, but they are earning money for their
school. For every new client signed up by the bank, VanCity donates $10, and
that's $878 to the school. This is an important program so that our next
generation will learn financial values and the values of savings.
I want to
congratulate the youth board of directors for a great job well done.
Mr.
Speaker: That concludes members' statements.
Oral Questions
B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION PROCESS
MacPhail: Last night in estimates debate the Minister of Transportation
finally abandoned his message box. I don't think he meant to, but he did admit
to a few things that haven't been previously admitted by this government. First,
he finally came clean and admitted what everyone else in the province already
knows: the Liberals have sold B.C. Rail Ltd. to CN — not leased but sold. He
also admitted
[ Page 10530 ]
that there is absolutely no requirement — not from the competition bureau,
not from the agreement with CN — that the terms of this deal be kept secret
from the public.
To the
Premier: why are he and his government continuing to insist on keeping the
details of this agreement from the public? What does the government have to
hide?
Hon. K.
Falcon: This member is a broken record in her ongoing attempts to try to
create misinformation around this deal, and it just frankly…. I don't know
whether it's just a complete lack of understanding on the most basic concept of
business transaction or if she's just trying to be disingenuous.
I've said
to that member and I'll say it again: the government, through B.C. Railway
Company, is the owner — the landlord of the railbed tracks and right-of-way.
Does she get that part of it? As the owner of the railbed and the rail tracks
and the right-of-way, we have a partnership agreement to lease the operations of
the railway to CN — who, by the way, will be investing some $5 billion of
private sector investment into a railway that will help revitalize northern
British Columbia and create enormous opportunities for the province of British
Columbia.
That member
needs to stop trying to misinform and get people thinking facts that aren't the
case and actually listen to the answers that I give.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary.
MacPhail: Oops, oops, he slipped back into his message box. Someone must
have talked to him. Fortunately, we have Hansard , and everyone can go and
see what the minister has admitted to over and over in estimates.
Here's what
the minister also revealed. He also revealed that the cancellation of the sale
of the Roberts Bank spur has cost taxpayers $900,000. We actually have reason to
believe that the cost to taxpayers is considerably higher than that. Last month
the Minister of Finance assured members of the House that CN in no way received
any beneficial information from leaks, but yesterday that part of the story
changed too. The Minister of Transportation admitted that highly confidential
information was leaked from CIBC World Markets to CN at a critical stage in the
supposedly open bidding process — information that was supposed to go only to
the winning bidder.
Can the
minister…?
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
MacPhail: I'm sure the Minister of Finance can stand up and answer if he
wishes. He's up to his eyeballs in this too.
Can the
Minister of Transportation explain how the confidential and competitive
information leaked to CN did not give CN a leg up in the bid to buy B.C. Rail?
Hon. K.
Falcon: You know, Mr. Speaker, the member knows we canvassed this very
extensively in estimates. She's actually got all these answers on the record.
This is just the member again trying to spread some misinformation, pretending
she's creating new news where none exists. This has been on the public record. I
encourage her to read the Charles River Associates report. It very clearly lays
out all that information. That was information that was going to the proponent
anyhow. They got it a number of weeks earlier, and that was all dealt with in
accordance with all the rules brought together….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. K.
Falcon: The member is not listening again, and this is possibly why she
never gets the answers right.
[1440]
If the
member would just refer to the Charles River Associates report, the independent
fairness evaluator who came and reviewed and interviewed all of the proponents
— all of the people involved in the transaction — came forward very clearly
and said that not only was this a good deal, not only was this deal well run,
but the province achieved more than fair market for the investment partnership
with CN–B.C. Rail.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.
MacPhail: Well, the Hansard record is far more interesting on what
the minister admits when he's not in front of the Premier. In fact, Charles
River Associates doesn't reveal any of this information. Here is what the
minister is not answering about.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition has the
floor.
MacPhail: Here's new information we learned yesterday in estimates. CN had
this confidential information during the open bidding process for October 8, 9
and 10 before they were asked for it back. CN originally offered a 5 percent
rate reduction to shippers. Its final bid, after it had received this
confidential informa-
[ Page 10531 ]
tion, was a 7 percent reduction. What changed? Through an amazing
coincidence, CN received a leak of — wait for it — highly confidential
shipping rates paid by CN's competitors. That was the confidential information
they received — and they alone. How can we be sure that CN…?
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. It's time for the question, hon.
member.
MacPhail: I am putting my…. How can…?
Interjections.
MacPhail: Well, I'm sorry. I understand that the Speaker…. That's fair
enough.
How can we
be sure that CN didn't use this confidential leak to its advantage and not to
the advantage of the shippers in B.C.? What's to say that CN didn't use the
information to lowball their shippers discount?
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order.
MacPhail: They lowballed their shippers discount because of that
confidential leak.
Hon. K.
Falcon: I would remind this House that these are exactly the kinds of
conspiratorial questions that this member came up with ad infinitum in the
estimates process. You know, she actually got all these answers. I guess she
only reads one side of Hansard , and that would be her questions. Possibly
the challenge is that she doesn't listen to the answers, as we're seeing
displayed here again, because as I'm giving my answer….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Please, hon. members. The minister has the floor.
Hon. K.
Falcon: What I would say to the member is this: actually take the time to
read the Charles River Associates report, the independent fairness evaluator who
has an impeccable reputation internationally, who did a fairness evaluation. She
refuses to read the report that answers all of those questions to everybody's
satisfaction but, apparently, hers.
J. Kwan:
Since 1996, CN has donated more than $122,000 to the B.C. Liberal election
machine. Yesterday the minister coughed up yet another fact that we didn't know
about. According to the minister, CIBC leaked the information to CN in
mid-October of last year — only a few weeks before CN was handed the contract.
Let's be
clear. CIBC identifies CN as the clear favourite in September. A few weeks
later, CN is handed confidential competitive information, which it hangs on to
for at least three days — information that results in it changing its bid.
Subsequently, the other bidders pull out in protest.
To the
Minister of Transportation: will he just admit that CN had the inside track all
along and the government did everything it could to help the big election
financier win the bid?
MacPhail: They changed their bid on that information.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: You're a lot braver now in this Legislature, aren't you? You're a
lot braver. Uh-huh. They changed their bid.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Transportation has the floor.
[1445]
Hon. K.
Falcon: Again, we canvassed all this information. Actually, this information
has been on the public record for a long time. In fact, I've had many scrums
with members of the media over this issue. If that member would take just five
minutes to actually read the Charles River Associates fairness report, in that
report it explains it all there. I think what that member needs to know is what
I told her in estimates. Apparently we're revisiting estimates.
Interjection.
Hon. K.
Falcon: Well, the member is not listening again. I think the member needs to
listen. Part of the reason you're not hearing this stuff is that you don't
listen. If you'd listen…
MacPhail: I know exactly what you said in estimates.
Hon. K.
Falcon: …I'm prepared to explain it.
Well,
that's right. Then you should know….
Interjections.
Hon. K.
Falcon: Mr. Speaker, it's a challenge to answer the question, because the
member opposite continues to make noise and, therefore, frustrates my attempts
to try and answer the question. One of the things that I've said to the member
before — I said it in estimates — is that she knows full well that that
information…. CN already had their bid forward. Their bid was in place.
MacPhail: They changed their bid.
Hon. K.
Falcon: No. As the member knows very well, we engaged in negotiations with
the lead proponent right up until the day before it was announced,
[ Page 10532 ]
and we got great value for British Columbians and the northern communities.
WORK OF LEAKY-CONDO TASK FORCE
Brenzinger: The constituents of Surrey-Whalley have been asking about the
status of the leaky-condo committee, of which I was a member. The Premier
created this task force to investigate the status of the leaky-condo crisis. A
report was produced and was reviewed by the Premier and the chair of the
committee.
My question
is to the Premier. Where is that report now, and why has it not been released to
the public? Or was this task force created to keep the members busy and the
public quiet?
Hon. G.
Campbell: As you know, Mr. Speaker, many people have been affected by the
challenges that have been presented by the leaky-condo crisis in British
Columbia. This government, in our caucus and our caucus committee, has asked for
a number of recommendations on how we might be able to move forward. We will do
that only after review with the cabinet.
However,
let me say quite clearly to the member opposite that I think she understands how
hard all of our MLAs are working to solve challenges in British Columbia, and
they will continue to do that.
IMPACT OF HEALTH SUPPORT WORKER
LABOUR DISPUTE ON AUTISM SERVICES
J. Bray:
As we know, currently there is the HEU job action that is occurring. Although we
see it in hospitals, it's in fact having impacts across the health care sector.
I've heard from many constituents in the last few days on those impacts,
including a mother of an autistic son here in Victoria whose services are being
withheld because of the HEU job action. These services include autism
interventionists and occupational therapists, who are unable to assist these
children in homes and day cares because of the HEU strike. These children depend
on a stable routine to ensure that they have the supports they need.
Can the
Minister of Health Services please tell me what options are available to this
mother and other parents who need these services and are faced with removal of
these services due to the strike?
Hon. C.
Hansen: I think the point the member raises and the concern by that mother
underscore the real hardship that British Columbians are facing because of the
strike action by the Hospital Employees Union. There are so many contradictions
in this strike. They claim that they are trying to protect patient care, and yet
they are denying patients access to the care that they want. They say they're
interested in collective bargaining, but they will not come to the bargaining
table to negotiate a new agreement.
As the
member may know, I talked to the Labour minister earlier today. I have asked the
Labour minister to intervene, because I think that this strike has gone on too
long. Too many people have been hurt. Too many mothers of autistic children have
been hurt, and too many other British Columbians are being denied the care that
they need. We will take the action necessary to make sure that the patients'
interests get put at the top of the agenda.
[1450]
B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION PROCESS
AND POLICE INVESTIGATION
J. Kwan:
As we know, CN has pretty close ties with this government. The Deputy Premier,
for example, had to absent herself from votes on the deal because of a potential
conflict of interest. While the Roberts Bank deal has been scuttled, the
government has said the main line deal is solid. Can the Minister of
Transportation tell us: if tens of thousands of electronic documents seized by
police in the seventh warrant have been fully reviewed by the RCMP, with the
police investigation still underway, how can the minister be certain that the
B.C. Rail deal isn't tainted by leaks of confidential information and
allegations of criminal activity?
Hon. K.
Falcon: You know, it is….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order. Order, please, hon. member.
Order,
please. We'll continue when we have order in the chamber.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. K.
Falcon: It's always interesting when…. I guess it's just out of
desperation, because they have no decent questions to ask, that they continue to
come back on questions that have long been answered and explained.
I will say
it to the member again. The member knows full well that the day I rose and
announced the termination of the port subdivision process, I read a statement. I
encourage the member to actually take some time to read the statement. The RCMP,
as that member knows full well, reviewed and approved that statement prior to my
reading it out. That statement said, in part, that there was absolutely no
evidence whatsoever to suggest that CN was in possession of any information with
respect to the main freight line deal. Those members appear to have a challenge
accepting that most basic premise.
I'm sorry
if you're failing in your attempt to continue to misinform, but good luck in the
future.
[End
of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon.
G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information
of members, we'll be
[ Page 10533 ]
debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. In this House, I
call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 32.
[1455]
Committee of the Whole House
SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 2004
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 32; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The
committee met at 2:56 p.m.
Sections 1
to 25 inclusive approved.
Title
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without
amendment.
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 2:57 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 32,
Society Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third
time and passed.
Hon. G.
Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 18.
Committee of the Whole House
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2004
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 18; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
[1500]
The
committee met at 3:04 p.m.
Sections 1
to 11 inclusive approved.
section
J. Kwan:
This
section amends the Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003, passed just last
October. The explanatory notes accompanying the bill say that this amendment
"corrects an error." Actually, what it does is replace the word
"possible" with the word "practicable," so it's more than
correcting an error. It's the changing of a word. I'd like to ask the minister:
is there a legal or practical difference between these two terms? Why is the
change necessary? It appears to me that it's more than an error. It's the
replacing of one term with another.
[1505]
Hon. C.
Hansen: What's driving the amendment was in fact a typographical mistake in
the legislation. As it had read before, it was saying that the committee must
investigate the matter raised by the "complaint," and it should have
read the "complainant." That is what we are correcting.
addition, while we were making the same change, the legislative counsel
recommended that we change the term "as soon as practicable" to
instead make it say "as soon as possible." That is simply to have more
consistency with other legislation. I gather legislative counsel is going to try
to do this across legislation as we move forward — to not use the word
"practicable" but instead use the word "possible." In legal
terms….
Interjection.
Hon. C.
Hansen: No. What it currently states…. Hang on one quick second. I will
get some clarification on that, and I will rise to my feet again in a moment,
Mr. Chair.
Bill 18, what is before us today is repealing
section 23. In
section 23 it will
remove the words "by the complaint" and substitute them with "by
the complainant as soon as possible." You have to go back to the original
Health Professions Act, because the amendment that was put in last year, which
had not actually been implemented, used the word "practicable." To
make it more consistent with other legislation, we're actually taking advantage
of this change today — the typographical mistake that's being corrected — to
also change the term from "practicable" to "possible" to
have it more consistent with conventional drafting practices across other
legislation.
J. Kwan:
In other words, there is no substantive difference. It is just a terminology
issue, and there is no legal substance to these two terms — practicable versus
possible.
Hon. C.
Hansen: That is correct.
Sections 12
and 13 approved.
section
J. Kwan:
The
section amends
section 12 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act. Last year we
amended
section 12 of the act to provide for the privatization of a part of B.C.
Hydro through the partnership with Accenture. In those amendments last year we
specifically exempted the Accenture partnership from sections 3 and 5 of the
act. With these amendments to
section 12 of the act, we are now removing any
mention of the word "partnership" and thereby any application of this
act to any firm Hydro may partner with in the future.
[ Page 10534 ]
The Premier
has made much of keeping B.C. Hydro's core assets and functions under public
control — the production, distribution and transmission of electrical power.
We have any number of cabinet ministers and government supporters now publicly
musing about building Site C and using the private sector to do so. Despite what
David Black says about Hydro building Site C as it has the proven expertise,
these amendments set the stage for Hydro to enter into a partnership with a firm
to build large-scale projects like Site C.
How will
these amendments, of course, impact on the Premier's pledge to keep Hydro's core
assets in public hands? When it came to not selling B.C. Hydro, as the Premier
promised during the last election campaign, we find a lease arrangement that
extends in perpetuity, as it has renewal options extending for 900 years beyond
the initial 90-year agreement.
[1510]
The
Attorney General, by all accounts, is a pretty good lawyer and will know that
any contract with renewal terms — provisions that extend beyond any reasonable
determination of the life of a fixed asset — is in fact a sale. I suspect that
as a politician, the Attorney General is somewhat embarrassed to have to defend
this so-called partnership with CN when the contract is explicit that it is no
such thing. It is simply a landlord-tenant agreement.
My question
relating to this
section of the act is: can the Minister of Energy and Mines
guarantee to this House that any new dams constructed by or on behalf of B.C.
Hydro will be owned by B.C. Hydro regardless of any partnerships and not subject
to any lease arrangements such as was entered into by the government with
regards to B.C. Rail?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: First off, there has been no decision to build Site C. There is a
request before the B.C. Utilities Commission to review Site C to see if that
would be an option for British Columbians, but there is in no way any decision
made on building Site C. That would be something that would take a lot of
discussion and consultation work with the B.C. Utilities Commission before any
of those decisions are made.
I want to
again stress, in case someone misunderstood some of the question, that the core
assets of B.C. Hydro are publicly owned, will continue to be publicly owned into
the future, have been publicly owned and will be publicly owned at least while
this government is in office.
J. Kwan:
If we use the B.C. Rail example, for which this government had used a
990-year lease with its core assets, you know what? By any stretch of the
imagination, one knows that in such an arrangement, where the renewal provisions
extend beyond any reasonable determination of the life of its fixed assets, it
is in fact a sale.
While the
minister says there is no determination as yet with respect to Site C…. The
question to the minister is, though: will the minister guarantee that any new
dams constructed by or on behalf of B.C. Hydro will be owned by B.C. Hydro
regardless of any partnerships that would be entered into, and that it would not
be subject to lease arrangements like that of the B.C. Rail situation?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: This has absolutely nothing to do with B.C. Rail — nothing at
all. This
section deals with B.C. Hydro and cleaning up the act to a certain
degree to make it more understandable and palatable to independent power
producers that wish to build projects to provide incremental energy moving
forward for B.C. Hydro.
As I said
earlier, there has been no decision made on the construction of Site C — none
whatsoever. In fact, B.C. Hydro, as I said earlier, has put some information
before the B.C. Utilities Commission, which will review all that information.
There has been no decision made.
The
Chair: I must remind the member to keep her questions relative to
section
J. Kwan:
Yes, and I use B.C. Rail as a way of an example where the government says
there has been no sale, when in fact….
The
Chair: Member, carry on, please. Keep your questions relative to
section 14.
J. Kwan:
I'm drawing the analogy of the government's action with respect to sales and
lease arrangements with the B.C. Rail situation. As I mentioned, a 990-year deal
in fact, in a sense, is no longer a lease arrangement but rather a sale, because
the term actually extends beyond the life of the fixed assets. The question
related to this
section of the act is about Site C in terms of any possible
partnership arrangements.
What is
clear from the minister's answer, then, is this. He is not prepared to commit on
record that this notion of partnership the government may well enter into, this
notion of lease arrangements in the case of B.C. Rail, is in fact a sale of B.C.
Rail. The government is not prepared to commit in this House with any new dam
constructions that they would not sell off that asset. The government would
actually ensure….
Interjection.
The
Chair: Order, please. Order. Member, keep your questions relative to
section
14, please.
Interjection.
J. Kwan:
The Attorney General can take the floor and answer the question if he wants
to. But the reality is this….
Interjections.
J. Kwan:
My goodness. The government members are just a little sensitive these days. I
wonder why that would be. Maybe it's because of all the different….
[ Page 10535 ]
[1515]
Interjection.
The
Chair: Order, please. Order, please.
Interjection.
The
Chair: Member, keep the question on
section 14, please.
J. Kwan:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are lots of sensitivities here around the government
bench. There's a lot of nervousness, and I wonder why that is, particularly from
the Attorney General.
Interjection.
The
Chair: Order, please. Order, please.
Member,
proceed.
Section 14.
J. Kwan:
You know, there are two opposition members. We're asking questions that are
completely legitimate within the debate of this bill. I asked a question about
guarantee from the government with any of this notion of a partnership that the
government would enter into with B.C. Hydro and this new dam construction with
potentially Site C — whether or not the government will sell its assets like
the government has done with B.C. Rail. That's exactly what this government
does. On the one hand they sell off assets that belong to British Columbians,
and then they turn round and say, "Oh no, we did no such thing," and
we've got to call it all these other things that they call it.
The
question becomes…. It's a critical one that I put to the minister. The
question is this. The minister would not commit on record to whether or not
he'll guarantee that any of these partnerships the government would enter into
with respect to new dam constructions related to B.C. Hydro would still remain
with B.C. Hydro — that they would be owned by B.C. Hydro. If the government is
so certain about its approach of not selling off British Columbia assets, then
the answer could have been, "No, we will not sell off B.C. Hydro assets or
British Columbia assets, and we'll say with any new dam constructions: 'Yes, the
answer is that it will be owned by B.C. Hydro.'" But the minister would not
give that answer, and I wonder why that is.
Interjections.
J. Kwan:
They say it's not relevant, just like the sale of B.C. Rail was not relevant to
the new-era campaign of the Liberal government that said: "We will not
sell…
The
Chair: Please, come on, let's….
J. Kwan:
…B.C. Rail."
The
Chair: Order, please.
J. Kwan:
I guess that commitment was not relevant. Yes. Yes, that's exactly what the
government is doing — promises made, promises broken. You know what? That's
not relevant to debate. Why? Because the government is embarrassed about it, and
they don't want to talk about it. That's why they say it is not relevant.
That's my
interpretation of the minister's answer to the question. It's a simple question
to the minister about making sure and guaranteeing to British Columbians that in
fact any of these new partnerships entered into with B.C. Hydro in the new dam
construction would be owned by B.C. Hydro, and the minister would not commit to
that.
At second
reading the Attorney General had this to say about these amendments: "Next,
Bill 18 amends the Hydro and Power Authority Act to increase B.C. Hydro's
business flexibility and to eliminate duplication and overlap. These changes
will allow the corporation to become more efficient and cost-effective, and will
also assist the corporation and government to implement a provincial energy plan
by supporting low-cost electricity." Can the minister explain just how
these amendments support low-cost energy when all new production is to come from
the private sector?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Well, after that long-winded little spiel about B.C. Rail and about
privatizing B.C. Hydro, it's not untypical of the opposition member to try and
say things that are the furthest from the truth on a constant basis. After a
while, I think, she believes it herself. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me
for that member to stand up in this House and say anything about B.C. Hydro
being for sale. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
This
government, under Premier Campbell's vision, has kept B.C. Hydro in the public
hands. We've kept its core assets in the public hands so we can actually
maintain the lowest rates in North America in public hands. The only
administration that I know of in the last little while that was contemplating
selling B.C. Hydro was the administration that that member was a part of. That
in fact comes out in the records. That comes out in the records of B.C. Hydro in
the voting.
Interjections.
The
Chair: Order, members, order.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: You know, I listened to you.
Interjection.
The
Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, let's listen to the answer.
[1520]
Hon. R.
Neufeld: It was the last administration that wanted to sell B.C. Hydro. It
was the last administration that did a poll on how people would feel about
selling B.C. Hydro or B.C. Rail or all the Crown corporations. It was your
administration that did that.
We've never
done that. This is a public entity and will continue to be a public entity, and
we will continue to have the lowest costs going forward in British Colum-
[ Page 10536 ]
bia under the leadership of the Premier of this province. These sections will
help us continue to do that.
J. Kwan:
You know, I have to say that the government is a bit on the edge today. I wonder
why that is, Mr. Chair. Yeah, okay, there is one opposition member in the House
asking questions of the minister, and there are three ministers who feel they
must heckle the one opposition member.
So be it,
Mr. Chair. You know what? The minister says that the NDP was going to sell B.C.
Hydro. No, that is absolutely not true. The options were put before the minister
for full consideration, and the former minister rejected it, the former
administration rejected it, and no B.C. Hydro of anything was sold off under the
previous administration.
What is
clear, however, is that this government said they weren't going to sell off B.C.
Rail, and what did they do? They turned around and sold B.C. Rail. This
government said they did not privatize B.C. Hydro, and what did they do? They
brought in Accenture, pretty well to run the entire operation of B.C. Hydro.
They say:
"Oh, we didn't do that; we didn't privatize. We did all these great,
wonderful things." But you know what? They change the terms to mean
whatever they want them to mean, but the public knows the difference. You, the
government, Mr. Chair, can call the B.C. Rail lease, a 990-year lease, a lease
for all intents and purposes. The public knows that is a sale.
The
Chair: Member, member. Member, take your seat, please. Take your seat. Take
your seat. Take your seat, please.
Member,
we've asked several times now to stay relevant to this section. You are getting
back to the same tired argument here. Please stay current with the section.
Halsey-Brandt: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave
granted.
Introductions by Members
Halsey-Brandt: I'm very pleased that joining us in the gallery just above me
this afternoon is a grade 5 class from the Jewish Day School in Richmond led by
their teacher, Ms. Dodek. A number of adults have joined them on this trip to
procedure and decorum and good-quality debate, as we obviously have this
afternoon here in the House. Would the members please make them welcome.
Debate Continued
J. Kwan:
The minister didn't answer my question on
section 14. I asked the minister a
question about how these amendments would actually support low-cost electricity
when all new production is going to come from the private sector. The minister
did not answer the question.
I asked the
question of the minister for a guarantee that any new construction with new
dams, with partnerships with B.C. Hydro — whether or not he would guarantee
those would be owned by B.C. Hydro…. The minister would not provide that
guarantee.
At the end
of the day, what does it mean, and how does one sum up the information that is
before us — that the government has sold British Columbia assets in many
areas, as we have identified and seen throughout government? The government will
call it anything else but what it is and the truth of what it is. You know what,
Mr. Chair? This government can't try and fool British Columbians, because they
know the difference. They know what the government is doing, and they will hold
this government to account.
Lekstrom: Just a question regarding
section 14. When I read this, when we
talk about the Hydro and Power Authority Act,
section 12, removing the ability
of the authority to do the following…. It's the first bullet: "Demand
particulars from persons who own, operate or control power sites, power projects
or power plants." Can the minister explain just what that
section really
means in the context of, for instance, somebody putting water through a spillway
on a run of the river? That type of information I think is valuable to the
people in the area, to the environment and so on. In that context, how do we get
that information?
[1525]
Hon. R.
Neufeld: The information about the water and the spillways can be accessed
through the Water Act. That's where B.C. Hydro accesses its information, and the
requirements of how they operate are through the Water Act, so that can be done
through that act. The
section here,
section 12(1)(i), is actually a
section
we're removing that was used in the creation of B.C. Hydro under B.C. Electric.
It has been there, I guess, since the first B.C. Hydro act, and what we're doing
is moving towards taking some of those sections out. That's all that takes place
there.
Lekstrom: Just one follow-up question, then. Having another act to cover the
issue that arose is interesting and comforting to the people, I think, so they
know there are other areas of government legislation that cover that. Would that
hold true for the amount of power put back into the grid, for example, from
somebody that holds a power generating site? They're going to contract with
Transmission, I'm sure, with the amount of power. We would need to access that
type of information as well. Is that encapsulated within another piece of
legislation?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: If an IPP sells to B.C. Hydro and has a long-term agreement —
let's say a 20-year agreement — that agreement is directly with B.C. Hydro. If
[ Page 10537 ]
they have an agreement with BCTC to wheel power to, let's say, a large
consumer or if they want to build for export or something, then that agreement
would be with BCTC.
Section 14
approved.
section
Lekstrom: Under
section 15, where we talk about the Hydro and Power
Authority Act, sections 13, 21, 26, 28 and 29, it removes the following — and
I'm going to go to the last bullet: "that the authority submit an annual
report and financial statements for provision to the Legislature." Can you
minister explain the removal of that provision and why?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: This is just cleaning up, because that requirement already exists
in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.
Sections 15
to 18 inclusive approved.
section
J. Kwan:
section 19, the explanatory note for this
section says this amendment to the
Interpretation Act "facilitates the new table format for commencement
provisions by establishing a general rule respecting retroactive commencement of
provisions in
an act." But to read the amendment, one would be hard-pressed
to find any mention of the new table format — a format already in use in bills
before this House, including, in fact, this bill.
There is no
legal or parliamentary reason for the
Interpretation Act to be amended to allow
for the use of a table rather than what has been the case thus far of simply
listing the differing coming-into-force dates of any given act. What this
section does is captured in the explanatory note, where it says this amendment
establishes a general rule respecting retroactive commencement provisions.
It is
curious that this government has seen fit to amend the
Interpretation Act to
permit what, not too many days ago, the Minister of Finance, the House Leader,
argued quite strenuously was a perfectly legal and appropriate parliamentary
measure. In fact, the Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance, stated
that he had consulted legislative counsel before his December tax increase
announcement and was assured that all was in order.
[1530]
Yet here we
are today establishing in legislation the right to enact legislative provisions
including increasing taxes retroactively. Given that the Minister of Finance
says everything was done in order, one has to question why the
Interpretation
Act is now before the House with this amendment. Can the Attorney General tell
this House why this amendment is necessary, if legislative counsel says that
there is no need for it? Will the Attorney General table any and all legal
advice provided to the Minister of Finance in regard to retroactive,
retrospective legislation?
Hon. G.
Plant: The
Interpretation Act, which is being amended in this provision, is
a statute of general application. It accomplishes a number of goals. One of the
things it does is contain some
definitions or words that appear in a variety of
statutes. Sometimes in order to read a statute completely, you've got to make
sure that any particular provision you've got in front of you and the words in
it don't have a unique meaning that might be found in the
Interpretation Act.
So the
Interpretation Act is, among other things, a sort of users' guide to how to read
statutes. It sets out some rules and some principles about how statutes are to
be read, how they operate and their legal effect. What's being proposed here is
an amendment to streamline — I think the word is — in effect, the way in
which commencement provisions are to be drafted in statutes on a going-forward
basis.
There are a
number of ways you can draft commencement provisions. There are some changes
that have been made recently to try to change the presentation of commencement
provisions so that people can see more quickly when a particular
section comes
into place. Sometimes legislation includes provisions that are intended to
operate retroactively. The traditional practice that's been followed in this
House is that the bill that contains a retroactive provision will have at the
end of it a
section which says when that retroactive provision is to come into
effect and will contain language that expressly makes the provision retroactive
to the extent necessary to give it force and effect on and after that earlier
date.
What we're
doing here is nothing more and nothing less than removing the requirement to do
that in every single bill by creating here a general rule that will be found in
the
Interpretation Act. The way the general rule will operate is that anytime an
act contains a provision to the effect that it or some part of it comes into
force on a date that is earlier than the date on which the bill is given royal
assent, then the act or that part of it will come into force in accordance with
the provision in the bill. It will be deemed to have come into force on the
earlier date and will be deemed to operate retroactively, in the language used
here.
What it
really is, is sort of a legislative drafter's tool of convenience to help
drafters make legislation easier to read. Really, this is an initiative that
came forward on the recommendation of legislative counsel, who are always
looking for ways to make our statutes easier to read and use.
J. Kwan:
If the Attorney General says that this is just housekeeping in some ways, if you
will, to streamline all the other pieces of legislation where the government is
putting forward actions — for example, the tobacco tax that the government had
introduced prior to legislation being introduced…. Therefore, this
section of
the act would rectify that problem so the government can then introduce tax
grabs any-
[ Page 10538 ]
time they want without debate, because then all they can do is just fall back
on this provision to say: "Well, there's a provision that says we can
collect this illegal tax retrospectively" — in that instance with the
tobacco tax —" and so therefore everything is in fine order."
If the
minister says that is in fact the case, then on the question to the minister
about all legal advice that was provided to the Minister of Finance in regard to
retroactive legislation relating to the Tobacco Tax Act provision, will the
minister commit to tabling that information to this House?
[1535]
Hon. G.
Plant: All governments from time to time are required to legislate
retroactively. Certainly, the government that was in office when I sat in
opposition for five years legislated retroactively. All the retroactive
provisions contained in those bills back then had to have a separate provision
in each bill where such a provision was found to explain that the
section in
question or the portion of the bill or all of it would operate retroactively.
For
example, when the former government was required — as a result of the
litigation in the probate fees case in the Supreme Court of Canada
— to retroactively repair its collection of probate fees over a number of
years, it brought in
an act called the Probate Fees Act, I think. That act
contained a number of provisions that ensured that all of the tax that had been
collected under a provision which the Supreme Court of Canada had, in effect,
declared to be unconstitutional could nonetheless be deemed to have been
collected under a lawful provision.
There was
similar legislation introduced by the former government to repair some of the
challenges they experienced when they unlawfully attempted to administer gaming,
changes to gaming practice and policy. Again, that was legislation — it was
Bill 51 — that had retroactive provisions in it.
As I say,
all governments are required to legislate retroactively from time to time. I
think most governments, perhaps all governments, do so reluctantly, but
sometimes they do so because they have to. All that's being provided for here is
a change in the rules of drafting that will simplify, without affecting
substantively, the way in which retroactive legislation is drafted.
The member
may have arguments from time to time about whether legislation can be made
retroactive, either because she has concerns about parliamentary practice or
substantive law or just her sense of what makes good politics. Those arguments
will continue, and nothing in this amendment will affect those arguments one way
or the other. This is really just changing drafting conventions.
J. Kwan:
I will remind the minister…. I quote the Minister of Finance when asked the
question about the illegal tax grab on the tobacco tax. His response was:
"We did speak to legislative counsel before making this announcement and
were assured that it was in order." Of course, the government introduced
legislation after the fact with the tobacco tax, and the House was still
sitting, actually, on December 16. The government didn't introduce legislation
on December 16, but then on December 19 the government made this announcement
that they're going to have a tax grab of $6 million without the matter coming to
debate in the Legislature.
Now we have
this
section of the act,
section 19, amending all government actions. The
government would like to call it streamlining, but the reality, in my view, is
this. The government is paving the way for any mistakes it might make in the
future and is paving the way, actually, to justify the actions of what this
Minister of Finance had engaged in. That was essentially to engage in an illegal
tax grab.
The
Chair: Member, I must caution you on that. It is improper language to use in
this House, and you will have to retract that. Thank you.
J. Kwan:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we have
section 19 before us.
The
Chair: Member, I asked you please to retract that. You referred to a
statement as being illegal. I would have to ask you to retract it, please.
J. Kwan:
Well, I'll retract it. But you know what, Mr. Chair?
The
Chair: It is unparliamentary, member.
J. Kwan:
I will retract that. But you know what? The public knows what it is. The
government actually….
The
Chair: Member, unconditionally, please, retract that statement.
J. Kwan:
As I said, I retracted it, Mr. Chair.
[1540]
But I do
want to actually highlight an issue on which we're engaging in discussion under
section 19. That is that the government introduced and brought into force a tax
grab on British Columbians without having the matter come before debate in the
House. The House was sitting in the Legislature at the time when the government
brought this announcement to British Columbians on December 19. On December 16
the House was still sitting, just three days prior to government introducing
this tax grab. There was nothing introduced in the House, and then three days
later they introduced this tax grab without any legal authority — because the
matter has not been debated in the House, and it was retroactive.
The
Chair: Member, take your seat, please. Take your seat, please. Member, the
Speaker….
Interjection.
[ Page 10539 ]
The
Chair: Member, the Speaker has ruled on that issue, and the matter has been
put to bed. Thank you very much. Proceed now with
section 19.
J. Kwan:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm using
this as an example to highlight the issues being raised under
section
Section 19 before us is dealing with a situation where the government is
allowing, from now on, for any retroactive legislation that could come into
force, in what this Attorney General says is just simply streamlining. But in my
view, as I stated, it is to cover the government's tracks in terms of what the
government has done. The most recent example is the tobacco tax.
If the
Attorney General and the Minister of Finance are so confident with their actions
to date, why won't they just simply commit to providing all of the legal advice
and documentation they have received regarding the tobacco tax for this House's
information so the public can judge for themselves in terms of what that legal
advice is? They can make that determination. For this government, the Minister
of Finance and the Attorney General to say: "Everything is just fine. Just
trust us…." The track record of this government's word has been anything
but trustworthy to date.
Hon. G.
Plant: I should explain a little bit more, perhaps, about how the provision
will operate. As I said earlier, all legislation — well, almost all
legislation — has some commencement provisions. Sometimes the bill doesn't
have a commencement provision because it simply comes into force on royal
assent. But oftentimes legislation has a commencement provision or more than one
commencement provision because the intention is to phase in the operation or the
implementation of the legislation to allow for regulations to be drafted or
something similar. Commencement provisions are certainly a familiar feature of
legislation.
As a result
of the change in drafting practice that is already being implemented and the
change in procedure that will be permitted by the passage of this amendment,
what members interested in looking at legislation will see is a slightly
different set of provisions and a slightly different-appearing set of provisions
around commencement.
Now, as I
said earlier, occasionally governments are required to legislate retroactively.
All governments do it. The member clearly has an interest politically in the
subject of retroactive legislation. So, now the question before the House is
this: does this legislation, this bill, do anything that would remove the
ability of the opposition either to identify that a provision is retroactive or
to debate that issue of retroactivity? That is, is there something before the
chamber that would allow government to hide or obscure that it is attempting to
legislate retroactively? The answer is: there is not anything here that will
hide retroactivity.
Any statute
that has any provision in it which needs to operate retroactively will have a
commencement clause that will identify that fact at the end of the bill. There
will be a commencement clause which says that the act comes into force on a
particular date. In fact, I suspect in most, if not all, cases there will be a
title to that provision which will expressly identify that the
section is
intended — or some
section is intended — to operate retroactively.
[1545]
The member
can't stand it when she is corrected. She can't stand it because she knows she's
wrong, and she won't answer. In fact, I say: let's hear from the member. Let's
have a chance to hear from the member in her chair on the fact that we've
answered her question. What are the concerns she has about the section? Her
concerns apparently may not extend to continuing the question on this section.
The fact is
that all this does is change the way in which retroactive provisions are
presented in legislation. Any member who has a concern about an issue of
retroactivity will have all the opportunity they need to pursue that issue
vigorously, and I'm sure that it will be pursued vigorously whenever the issue
arises.
Sections 19
to 45 inclusive approved.
Title
approved.
Hon. G.
Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without
amendment.
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 3:46 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 18,
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment,
read a third time and passed.
Hon. G.
Collins: I call Committee of Supply for the consideration of the estimates
of the Ministry of Advanced Education.
Committee of Supply
The House
in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The
committee met at 3:49 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 9:
ministry operations, $1,898,849,000 (continued) .
Hon. S.
Bond: Mr. Chair, I would just like to introduce the staff that are with me.
I have with me my
[ Page 10540 ]
deputy minister, Philip Steenkamp; Tom Vincent, my assistant deputy minister,
student and strategic services division; and Arlene Paton, the director of the
public institutions branch.
[1550]
J. Kwan:
Prior to the lunch break in the estimates of Advanced Education, I was
asking the minister questions about the on-line piece on the provision of
advanced education. The minister committed to finding out for me some
information with respect to that — the actual cost to deliver the on-line
education on a per-space basis and if there is a wait-list in British Columbia
for people to try to get into on-line learning. I believe the minister actually
didn't have the exact information on the tuition fee piece. Oh no, the minister
did have the information on tuition. She said the tuition is the same, which
raised, in my view, the important point of finding out how much it costs to
deliver the on-line learning so that we can compare that information.
Now, on the
comprehensive strategy that the minister talked about and that's included in the
throne speech with respect to increased access to advanced education, there were
other things within it that the minister mentioned. One was the issue of
targeting the aboriginal community with respect to access to advanced education.
I wonder if the minister could elaborate on the work that the government is
doing with respect to that — what programs, specifically, are in place and any
updates the minister might have with respect to that.
Hon. S.
Bond: In terms of our work with first nations students and the opportunities
that we have, we have actually done a considerable amount of work on the
aboriginal policy framework. One of the things that we wanted to do was be sure
to be inclusive and make sure that first nations were providing the leadership
as we looked for input. Very recently, within the last couple of months — the
days fly by — we held a forum called Open Space. We brought together
leadership, educators — just an incredible group of people from across the
province — to talk about aboriginal and first nations student needs. That was
one of the goals we had set working with the first nations leadership.
Secondly,
we have just recently provided funding for there to be a position called a first
nations education steering…. Actually, that's the committee that we're working
with — a coordinator, $90,000, so that we can work more closely together with
first nations organizations. In addition to that, we continue to fund $1.5
million — it was previously $1.3 million; we raised the dollars in that
particular fund to $1.5 million — in the aboriginal special projects fund.
One of the
things that's critical to me is that as we move forward with those funds and
with the projects that are in place there, we involve the first nations
leadership and educators around the province in the effectiveness and the
appropriateness of those particular projects — working very closely with first
nations in order to, frankly, improve the participation rates of aboriginal
students in post-secondary institutions.
J. Kwan:
A number of questions for the minister. First, the first nations community that
the minister says she's working with — who are they?
[1555]
Hon. S.
Bond: First of all, we are trying very hard to involve a broad spectrum of
people in the first nations community. For example, at our Open Space
conference, which was a forum designed by first nations people actually, with
the format we included the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
and several urban aboriginal organizations. We also included representatives of
the Métis organizations, and we involved people who teach and are involved in
the post-secondary system. We brought band coordinators together as well as
first nations coordinators from throughout the college system.
We are
working very hard to receive their input to look at how we can better serve the
needs of their students in this province. We think it is important that they
provide that kind of input. I'm really pleased about the ability to bring
together a coordinator, which we just recently funded and which is not even in
place yet. I think that in the very beginning of May that position will be in
place. I have had the opportunity on a number of occasions to meet with Grand
Chief Ed John as we, together, try to figure out how best to serve the needs of
aboriginal students.
J. Kwan:
The committee that the minister talked about — who is on that committee?
Hon. S.
Bond: The first nations education steering committee is not one of
government's. It is actually a product of the First Nations Summit. They bring
together representatives from all across the province to discuss first nations
education issues. I believe there is one on the K-to-12 side as well, and I'm
not sure if they're part of that particular group. There are leaders from all
across the province, and it is through the first nations education steering
committee that we will be providing the funding for a coordinator's position. A
couple of the names that come to mind in terms of committee membership would be
Nathan Matthew and Christa Williams. We meet with them — certainly not
frequently, but we have met with them — and they are the connection to the
First Nations Summit.
J. Kwan:
The coordinator, presumably, came out of the recommendation of the
committee. Am I right in assuming that? In that instance, does the coordinator
work for the committee, or does the coordinator work for the government?
[1600]
Hon. S.
Bond: The coordinator will be employed by the first nations education
steering committee. One of the reasons it was important was that much work had
[ Page 10541 ]
been done on the K-to-12 side, and there was a more collaborative approach
there. So while the person will be an employee of the first nations education
steering committee, our expectations are that they would liaise with government
so we can do a better job of serving the needs of aboriginal students. There
will be a role of liaison with the government, but ultimately the money will go
to the first nations education steering committee for them to employ the person.
J. Kwan:
So the position is funded by government, but the individual is chosen by the
committee, and for all intents and purposes, the person actually works for the
committee. Okay. The minister says that the individual has been chosen already,
so that position is up and running?
Hon. S.
Bond: It certainly will be a competitive process led by the steering
committee. That is a process they will put in place. I'm not certain of the
status. We're not sure if it's actually been posted or if they've done
interviews, but it will be up to the first nations education steering committee
to choose the person they think will best be able to help them provide
leadership through the committee.
J. Kwan:
Under the special projects account, if you will, for the aboriginal
community, the minister says there is a $1.5 million budget for that. What are
the programs under this $1.5 million special account?
Hon. S.
Bond: The goal of the program is actually to have a partnership between
post-secondary education and an aboriginal organization. Typically, it can be
between a public post-secondary institution and either bands or tribal councils
or aboriginal advisory councils.
The
programs that have been sponsored over the last number of years are…. There's
a large number of them, and they are very diverse. They include things like
justice, trades, teacher training, adult education, social services, natural
resources, administration and creative writing. They can also provide additional
supports to institutions or to bands or just help students be more successful in
their education.
A committee
is put together with first nations representation that actually reviews the
proposals and makes the selections, because we obviously get more proposals than
we have dollars to fund. It's been very successful. I don't have the list of all
of the projects that have been completed and supported over the last year, but
I'd be happy to get that information and send it to you in terms of the
specifics of those programs.
J. Kwan:
Are these grant applications to which community groups apply? I'm not sure
if I'm following at all what the program is exactly.
[1605]
Hon. S.
Bond: The current amount of funding in the program is $1.5 million. What we
wanted to make sure we do is spread the availability of those dollars across any
institution that has first nations students or interests. First nations
representation actually select the proposals. An institution might have a
particular need for their students in a particular area. It has some sense of a
competitive process, but it's not granting in that sense. It is a pool of
dollars which all the institutions, universities and colleges, are aware of.
Together, first nations coordinators, for example, can generate the request and
work with their institution.
It is about
partnership. We do expect post-secondary education institutions to partner with
an aboriginal organization. It is a competitive process. We increased the pool
of dollars available to $1.5 million this year. It was $1.3 million last year.
J. Kwan:
Okay. So the $1.5 million in this special account are dollars set aside for
institutions that have something to do with aboriginal students and aboriginal
programs within their institutions. I think that's what I can gather from the
minister's comment to date.
I'm just
trying to figure out how this works, as an example, and therefore how it
translates on the ground for an aboriginal student, let's say. Can the minister
give me an example of one program with one particular institution — what
dollars it receives from government through this special account and what it is
trying to achieve?
Hon. S.
Bond: Certainly. Probably the best way for me to explain it is to give you a
couple of examples, because there have been some extraordinary opportunities for
aboriginal young people. Let me give you an example. At University College of
the Cariboo, the aboriginal…. This would have come out of the aboriginal
special projects fund. The aboriginal youth skills training program, for
example, received $67,655 for recruitment, student support and program delivery.
It was a summer training program at various locations in the city of Kamloops.
The program
began with 14 students. Students earned occupational first aid, work-safety
ergonomics, transportation of dangerous goods, WHMIS, transportation
endorsement, fire safety, confined space, fall protection. Thirty percent of the
students were able to find full- or part-time work, and an additional 30 percent
of the students are now actively pursuing post-secondary education. The
University College of the Cariboo and their aboriginal coordinator and a
partnership would have created this particular program in meeting a particular
set of needs.
That was at
the University College of the Cariboo. Let me give you an urban example.
Capilano College did an aboriginal film and television production program. It
developed a second-year diploma program. They received $75,000 from the project
fund for curriculum development, and what they did was create a 28-week ongoing
program, including a five-week practicum, that provides aboriginal students with
high-quality production training from the aboriginal perspective. It is
base-funded by the college.
We've had
two classes — 20 students and then 18 students. The good news about that was
that while it
[ Page 10542 ]
started as a pilot project funded with some seed money, that program has
actually been rolled now into Capilano's base programming. The other thing is
that it's developed an incredible relationship with the aboriginal arts
department at the Banff Centre for the Arts, which allows for that transfer to
advanced work-study or non-credit production training at the Banff Centre.
Those are
the kinds of excellent programs that the fund begins. Then institutions from
there hopefully roll it into their base programming.
[1610]
J. Kwan:
The partnership that the minister talked about in these kinds of initiatives —
what role does the partner play with the institution?
G. Hogg:
I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave
granted.
Introductions by Members
G. Hogg:
In the precincts at this very moment we have a group of exciting, dynamic
students from H.T. Thrift Elementary School in Surrey, along with parents and
their teacher, Mr. Daggett. Would the House please make them most welcome.
Mr. Chair,
if I may use the prerogative while upon my feet, I'd also like to state that in
the precincts today were 37 grade 5 students from Star of the Sea Elementary
School, along with their teachers, Mr. Durante and Ms. Kaye Kyne. They had many
dynamic, exciting questions, as did the students from H.T. Thrift. I'd like the
House to also make them most welcome.
Finally,
wanting to give the Minister of Advanced Education as much time as I possibly
can for her to confer with her staff and get everything exactly correct for the
questions from the opposition, in the precincts today was Mr. Shivdave Lalari.
He was with members of the Sikh community to celebrate the 400th anniversary of
the Guru Granth Sahib temple.
I would
also like to introduce Ms. Kuldip Lalari. Kuldip is the mother of one of our
dynamic and exciting caucus staff members, Terry Lalari. She's also well known
for making wonderful samosas for caucus. I would like the House to please
recognize them today at this point.
Interjection.
G. Hogg:
Was the Attorney General asking to come to our office and eat the samosa? Was
that the…?
Hon. G.
Plant: For the samosa.
G. Hogg:
For the samosa. Thank you very much.
Debate Continued
Hon. S.
Bond: In terms of what role the first nations have in these aboriginal
special projects, certainly it's different in different circumstances. For
example, they might be in an advisory capacity in curriculum development,
because what's incredibly important is that we have an appropriate cultural
perspective. Very key is the preservation of language, so they are often
involved in those roles. They also have helped with labour market needs,
assessing how best first nation students can fit into the workforce. We also, in
some cases — and it's not as frequent as some of the advisory capacities —
have actually delivered services on reserve. Obviously, they're then involved in
the actual delivery. So it's a wide variety of ways, but there is an assumption
of a partnership that the post-secondary institution should be able to
demonstrate.
J. Kwan:
I'm glad to hear the minister's answer. What I was trying to get at and what I
was hoping for is that it's not contingent on first nations communities
partnering up with financial contributions. I worried about that, if that was
the case. Obviously, that may not be feasible for a lot of the first nations
communities to participate in. I'm glad to hear that is not the criteria and
that, in fact, partnerships are looked at in a much broader context than that.
In terms of
the students' participation in these various programs, what process does one go
through to try and get access to these kinds of initiatives?
[1615]
Hon. S.
Bond: Well, again, there isn't sort of a one-size-fits-all answer to the
question, because it's a mix of programs. Even in just the two examples that I
gave the member opposite…. Both of them, by the way, give me incredible hope
for opportunities and expanded opportunities for aboriginal students, and I
think we are working very hard to do that.
One of the
examples included students in grades 6 to 8. That perhaps was a partnership
between a school district and a post-secondary institution. One of the
challenges we find is, obviously, keeping first nations students in K-to-12, and
we're trying very hard to look at recruiting and retaining those students. If
typically students are members of a college or a university, though, those core
courses would be offered just like any others, and students could choose to
participate.
Another way
is that when they're offered on a reserve, the local community does a lot of
work to actually recruit and bring the number of students necessary. If you were
going to offer an LPN course, for example, they need to make sure there's the
critical mass necessary — a variety of ways. In essence, that's why it's
targeted funding, in a sense, to try to reach the particular group that we want
to try to attract to the system — a mix of programs and a variety of ways of
trying to bring students into those programs.
J. Kwan:
The programs that the minister talks about — I presume that the funding they
receive from government would be one-time funding only. Have
[ Page 10543 ]
there been instances where programs have proven to be successful and the
government has actually decided, "Hey, you know, this works, so let's fund
it and give it core funding," so that it could sustain itself year after
year to maximize the potential from these kinds of initiatives?
Hon. S.
Bond: That's a good question. One of the programs I gave an example of was
the Capilano program. In fact, that one was so successful. Of course, Capilano
has a great focus on things like film and production and those kinds of things.
These are pilot projects. The member opposite is correct: it is one-time
funding. One of the challenges we face is then, if those projects are
successful, moving them into an institution on a regular basis. What we have
done and what we encourage institutions to do…. There is no blanket funding
that goes with it after that point, and that's one of the challenges.
Institutions, though, have chosen, seeing the success of the programs, to roll
them into their core program offerings. They take some of the new FTE growth
that we have added. For example, out of the 25,000 seats, they could choose to
take 14 seats and replicate this program.
[1620]
But it is
an issue that we need to work on, on an ongoing basis. The point is obvious.
It's one-time funding, and we need to make sure that we are evaluating those
programs. And if they are successful for first nations students, we need to find
a way to make sure they continue on into core programming.
J. Kwan:
In the instance with Capilano College where it's the curriculum development,
it's easy for it to be duplicated because once the curriculum is developed, you
can use it time and again. But with some of the other programs that the minister
highlighted in the House today, it seems to me that those are not easily
duplicated unless you have ongoing funding for them. It's more than an issue of
the institution just accepting it as a curriculum within their institution.
On that
basis, I would argue that there is a need and a mechanism for the government to
actually come forward with ongoing core funding for these initiatives. The whole
purpose, I think, with pilot programs is to test them to see whether or not they
work. Then once we figure that out, if they do work, it's to keep it going so
that you can maximize the success of that pilot initiative.
So I hope
the government will actually undertake to do that work as part of this new
comprehensive strategy. I also hope it's not going to be a case where the
government will say, "Yeah, okay. So we see that these initiatives
work," but instead of funding it, giving it new additional money, it just
tells the institution to rob Peter to pay Paul. We know that with those kinds of
practices, all it does is prove to be divisive and prove to be, I think, very
unfortunate in many instances. Sometimes in that kind of approach, instead of
all the good intentions that were there, the good intentions are then lost
because of the funding pressures, and then the good work that has been
established will be lost through time. That would be most unfortunate.
So I hope
to see in the government's budget next year that there will be specific targeted
dollars for these initiatives, for ongoing funding for successful pilots. I'll
be canvassing those questions with the minister next year in the estimates
debate to see how we're doing. I'm just going to flag it for the minister. It's
going to come back again next year on that.
Okay.
That's the aboriginal special projects. Now, on the literacy fund, the minister
says that the funding has increased to $1.4 million. Maybe, first of all, the
minister can give me some information on what that entails in terms of the $1.4
million for the literacy initiative.
[K.
Stewart in the chair.]
[1625]
Hon. S.
Bond: The fund that we're talking about here is called the adult literacy
cost-shared program. I'm actually pretty proud of the fact that we just doubled
the funding to this as our commitment. Certainly, the Premier has made it clear
— and we agree — that literacy is absolutely critical for British Columbia
and for people who live here, so we recently doubled our commitment to the adult
literacy cost-shared program. Previous to this, we had contributed $700,000
annually. It is ongoing funding. It is part of our budget. We have doubled that
now.
It is
cost-shared with the federal government. They currently contribute $944,000 to
this program, and you should know we are urging the federal government to match
those dollars. We'd love to have them double their contribution as together we
tackle literacy issues in British Columbia.
One of the
things I appreciate most about this program is that much of the provincial
funding goes to community-based literacy groups. One of the things they do a lot
in the province is train volunteer tutors, who deliver one-to-one literacy
instruction. It also supports a number of activities such as family literacy.
I can't
begin to think how much more we're going to be able to do by doubling our
contribution, and just think what the possibilities would be if the federal
government came to the table with us as well. In essence, it is an opportunity
for us to work particularly with small community-based literacy groups in
supporting the work they do to provide tutoring and training opportunities in
the province.
J. Kwan:
The minister says she is proud that the government has doubled the funding in
the literacy funding initiative to $1.4 million. It's true. It's good that the
government has provided the dollars in this area, but on the other side of the
coin, the government has also put a lot of pressure on the adult basic education
initiative. That kind of counterpressure, in my view, doesn't make sense.
If the
government is serious about literacy and trying to address the issue around
literacy across British
[ Page 10544 ]
Columbia, then we need to look at it from a comprehensive point of view and
across governments in terms of strategically funding these kinds of initiatives.
Yet the ABE program has been under tremendous constraints in terms of funding
pressures under this government's administration. In fact, when we were doing
estimates debate with the Minister of Education in the K-to-12 sector, I asked a
question in terms of the literacy initiatives from that ministry and whether or
not there are specific targeted dollars for children in the K-to-12 sector in
that area. The minister replied they have no funding, at least at this time,
with respect to that.
The other
issue that has been highlighted in the estimates debate in the K-to-12 sector is
this. We have study upon study that says the library services within schools and
teacher-librarians actually do make a difference in student outcomes and their
achievement outcomes, particularly in the area of literacy and numeracy.
In spite of
that, we see a situation in the K-to-12 system where the ratio of students to
teacher-librarians has actually increased significantly from 400 to 700. That's
one per 700 students. In fact, a report came out that talked about a crisis
situation in the library system in the schools, so the counterpressure, if you
will, of the government's approach to literacy is baffling. On the one hand, the
government says it wants to address literacy, but on the other hand, you see
programs that are suffering within the government's system.
Therefore,
if we really want to address literacy, it leaves one wondering why that kind of
situation exists within the government — why those counterpressuring points
exist to perhaps offset the good work that's being done in one sector and then
offset by another sector where funding pressures exist to potentially eliminate
the gains one could receive from different programs across government.
[1630]
I just want
to bring that to the minister's attention. Now, is it the case, as far as I
understand it, that the Premier is establishing some sort of committee on
literacy? I don't think that committee has been put in place yet — a committee
or task force, whatever the term was that was used in the throne speech. Is the
Minister of Advanced Education involved in that? Presumably, the minister
will…. I shouldn't presume. Will the Minister of Advanced Education be on this
task force?
Hon. S.
Bond: While the actual committee — I don't know the name of it, task
force, committee, whatever it is — has not been announced, certainly our
ministry will be one of several that will be working on the literacy initiative.
It's important to all of us and certainly my ministry, and because of the
initiatives we have here, it's a key foundation to the pieces that we're doing.
I should
also point out that at the recent meeting of Ministers of Education across
Canada, literacy was one of the issues that we brought to the table, knowing how
important it was to British Columbia, and that it was an initiative also being
considered by the first ministers as well. We think it's incredibly timely and
very appropriate that B.C. take the lead in the issue of literacy across the
country, and that's what we intend to do.
In a more
brief answer to your actual question, yes, we will be involved.
J. Kwan:
I would say this to the minister as well, given her involvement in this area,
that it's counterproductive for government to be saying they are targeting
literacy issues in British Columbia, on the one hand, and then increasing the
funding; but then on the other hand, in another ministry, reducing the funding
or seeing pressures mount that would impact literacy and the advancement of the
successes that one is trying to achieve.
Given that
that is the situation before us, if we keep going down this road, really the
successes that you might be able to gain through this ministry's work are going
to be offset by the pressures and the budget reductions in another ministry. At
the end of the day, the net result may well be a zero gain, and worse yet, it
could actually set us back in trying to advance in the area of literacy. I want
to bring that to the minister's attention in her work with the government with
respect to this.
Is the $1.4
million in the literacy initiative targeted towards what the government had
highlighted in the throne speech, or are there going to be additional dollars
towards the throne speech commitment on addressing literacy?
Hon. S.
Bond: The $1.4 million is out of our budget and will deal with the issues
that we have around the adult literacy cost-shared program. It's my
understanding there will be additional dollars attached to the literacy agenda,
but that's obviously a bigger agenda than mine.
J. Kwan:
Then the expectation is that there will be additional dollars to this new
initiative that the government talked about in its throne speech. The Ministry
of Advanced Education would not be expected to take money out of its existing
budget towards the initiative that was announced in the throne speech.
Hon. S.
Bond: The $1.4 million comes out of my budget.
J. Kwan:
Could the minister update me on the status on the ABE program, please?
[1635]
Hon. S.
Bond: Certainly. Adult basic education is part of a package of programs we
call developmental programs. That's really our generic name. We have a cluster
special education. Those courses are delivered in 19 of our post-secondary
education institutions. Since I've been the minister, we have included in our
budget letters a highlight that
[ Page 10545 ]
adult basic education is a priority for us and that it should be reflected in
programming at institutions.
We have
recently added to our service plan the indication and the intent that we will
and adult special education. What we're currently doing is developing the
baseline data that's necessary so that we can measure how institutions are doing
in terms of targets that are set for them. At this point in time we have
indicated to institutions an individual target in terms of the number of seats
that are offered at their institutions.
We're in
the process of developing baseline data. Of course, that takes a bit of time.
We're looking at '03-04 data, and we'll be putting those into targets in the
future. The intent would then be to look at increasing those numbers, but first
we have to develop the baseline data. The key point is that we continue to make
it a priority, and we have set targets in the institutions' budget letters
around their numbers.
J. Kwan:
Let's begin by getting some comparisons, then, in terms of how we're doing, if
it's government's priority. For the budget years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and
then '02-03 and '03-04, etc. — to date — what were the budgets for those
respective years for adult basic education?
Hon. S.
Bond: We don't have the budget numbers for the past number of years with us.
One thing I can say is that we are continuing to include targets in
institutional letters. The goal of our service plan is to create baseline data.
The subsequent output would see us maintain or increase those numbers as the
years move forward. We don't have those budget numbers from 1999 with us.
J. Kwan:
I'm sure the minister can get that information. Not for today, but if the
minister could get that information and submit it to the opposition, I would
appreciate that.
The reason
why I actually want to see the information year over year is to see, first of
all on the funding side, where things are at — has it improved; has it stayed
the same; has it decreased? — what the situation is. That's one thing.
[1640]
I think,
actually, that the ABE pressures…. As I've mentioned, I know some institutions
had to reduce the number of seats because of funding pressures within their
system. We know there are ramifications, but to what extent the ramifications
are across the province I do not know, and I would like to receive that
information from the minister.
In addition
to the funding question, the other side of it, of course, is enrolment in terms
of how many students actually got access to the ABE programs throughout the
course of the respective years. I suspect the minister doesn't have that
information right now — over the years. If she does, I would be happy to
receive it. If she doesn't, if she could commit to providing that to the
opposition as well.
Hon. S.
Bond: We obviously have included, across the system, block funding. While we
don't target dollars specifically, what we have done, because of the importance
of ABE, is actually included targets for those particular programs. We will work
to get the information the member opposite has requested, and Tom has added that
to his list for me.
We have
made progress in terms of the process here. I will read one paragraph that
demonstrates…. It's from a faculty association. It says: "We also
appreciate the inclusion of developmental programs in the group of new-era
program-specific production targets. We joined many others in advocating for
such targets and wish they had been in place two years ago."
I think we
have made progress. Those targets are now included, and while the money is sent
as block funding…. Schools and institutions have to respond to student demand
and need, and the demand in some areas is sometimes greater than they would have
anticipated, but it's also lower in some places. Block funding gives them some
flexibility, but we also, for the first time, now have targets around
developmental programs.
J. Kwan:
I should say that the information I'm seeking from the minister would be, in
addition to enrolment, the number of spaces offered — in addition to the
funding question. Obviously, enrolment is one thing, but how many spaces are
available is another thing. The third thing I should add to that would be
wait-lists — whether or not there are wait-lists across the province in the
different institutions.
The issue I
know institutions are faced with is because funding for post-secondary
institutions is inadequate, many of them actually had to cut significant
programs. I know ABE has been one that has been impacted for some institutions,
not necessarily because the institution wanted to do that but because of funding
pressures. They simply did not have enough moneys from government to provide for
the programming that is required, so they had to make tough decisions as a
result of that. I don't necessarily blame the institutions for those decisions;
rather, the issue rests with whether or not there was adequate funding from the
provincial government to begin with for them to deliver these programs.
That
information would be useful and helpful in trying to have a better understanding
of what it looks like out there with respect to adult basic education
initiatives, to tie that into the government's commitment with respect to
literacy.
[1645]
The
baseline data the minister is talking about. Could she please elaborate on what
she means with respect to this baseline data? What information is she trying to
gather with the baseline data?
Hon. S.
Bond: We're going to establish the baseline based on the actual FTEs that
are reported for 2003 and 2004. That baseline can't be finalized until the
audited FTEs arrive and are available to us — that information.
[ Page 10546 ]
That won't happen until after May 15, 2004. Within a number of weeks we'll
have the audited numbers. The 2004 and 2005 budget letters — we call them
budget and accountability letters — set individual institutional FTE targets
for the developmental programs for those institutions that offer programs.
We should
say that we work really hard with institutions to make sure the numbers we're
looking at are within their capacity. We want them to be successful and meet
student needs. The targets are overall targets for developmental programs. We
language and adult special education. We haven't broken those down. It's an
overall target so that institutions can look at the needs of their students.
What we did
when we developed those targets for their letters was take into account the
number of developmental programs FTEs that were delivered by the institution for
the past three years, the percentage of programming devoted to developmental
programs compared to similar institutions, the location — we looked at whether
you're rural or urban — and other factors. Those were provided to institutions
in January. Actually, it wasn't quite January; it was within the last number of
weeks. In essence, we're trying to determine how many they've done over the last
three years, where they are and what the needs are. Once we have the audited
numbers, our baseline — we had to have credible data — will start in our
next service plan.
J. Kwan:
I should just clarify one thing. In the information that I was seeking from the
minister, I talked about ABE, adult basic education. In that I should include
whole program in terms of the ramifications towards literacy in this sector.
When can
the minister expect the baseline data that they are trying to put together would
actually be available?
Hon. S.
Bond: We'll receive the data sometime after May 15. We'll be working on it,
obviously, through June and the summer as we put the baseline data together. It
is being created in order to put it into our next service plan.
J. Kwan:
The targets that the ministry is trying to set in this area — when will
the minister finalize those targets?
Hon. S.
Bond: The targets for this year we've already determined. That was done
after a process of discussion and dialogue with institutions. As I said, we want
to make sure they're successful and have the capacity to deliver the programs.
Having said that, the key point is that they are going to maintain or increase
their numbers. That's the principle of using a baseline.
[1650]
The targets
were given to them in March. That's why I wanted to correct what I said. I read
January. They actually got their budget and accountability letters in March of
2004. In essence, those were general guidelines for the institutions. Targets
were included. I've been assured by my staff that those numbers…. Although
there's been a lot of discussion, we would still have the opportunity to see
some flexibility, but the general principle is to maintain or increase their
numbers.
J. Kwan:
Why did the minister pick the year '03— I think the minister said — as
the target year, as a baseline year for measurement? I would say that's not
necessarily a good year. Maybe it's a good year from the point of view that the
government's trying to lowball the targets. We know that the cuts already
impacted the community in the '03 year. One might actually want to use a better
baseline in terms of setting better targets in achieving the goal of addressing
literacy.
Hon. S.
Bond: Certainly, I just want to say on the record that we're not interested
in lowballing. The year we chose was the most recent one. That's a fairly
typical practice, because as you're building a baseline, that's where you start.
I do want
to point out and reiterate the fact that when we looked at the development of
targets for each of the institutions, we went back three years in terms of
developing their individual targets. Once we get the audited numbers that will
come in, we will have a look at those. We will look at the three-year history,
and there's still an opportunity to actually adjust those as necessary.
Our goal is
to increase opportunities for students in those areas. We were very clear that
we would go back and look at the historic pattern of enrolment in that package
of programs. We did go back three years, but the year chosen was the most
recent.
Again, our
goal is absolutely to increase programming and developmental programs. We've
received a number of really positive comments about the fact that we are
including targets. It indicates our commitment and the priority that we see. We
needed to start a baseline somewhere, but again, for individual targets, we've
gone back three years.
J. Kwan:
I'd be interested in receiving the information from the minister, because then
it'll give you a sense of the targets and whether or not those targets that the
minister set for the institutions are at the high end or low end. When I receive
that information, I'll be able to make that determination as well.
The reason
why, as a general sort of statement in terms of lowballing, is that we know, as
I said, that the budget impacts have been greatest in the '03 year, I think,
since the government took office. We know that the enrolment impact has been
significant in the institutions that I've spoken with because of these budget
constraints. If there's an opportunity for the government to not necessarily use
the lowest year in terms of target setting, that would be good. If the real
interest here is to actually achieve the goal of addressing literacy, then I
would expect and I would hope that the
[ Page 10547 ]
targets would be set higher rather than lower so that we can actually move
towards greater success rather than reduced success. I'll await the information
from the minister with respect to that on this front.
In terms of
setting targets it's one thing to say to institutions that we expect you to
achieve this, this and that. What measures are in place to ensure that these
targets are achieved by institutions? In other words, what monitoring process
would the ministry be putting in place to ensure that these targets are met?
What ramifications are there, if any, if the targets are actually not met?
[1655]
Hon. S.
Bond: Certainly, the process we use in coming up with the targets is a
lengthy one. It's very thoughtful, and it's very carefully done. My staff meets
regularly, and one of the things I asked them to do over the last couple of
years was to reinstitute regular meetings with institutions individually as we
prepare their budget and accountability